Hypotheses 1a and 1b,
suggesting that trust would be positively associated with
alliance success and would be positively associated with partner
integrity regarding to claimed managerial and technical abilities
were supported. When the factor scores were regressed
against measures of alliance success, trust was significant in
all tests, explaining between 45%
and 52% of the observed variance. H1b, was supported.
Trust, and access/respect for partner skills, were significant
factors in determining whether the entrepreneur would make any
alliance changes. Furthermore, these factors were also
significant when asked how easy it was to maintain the alliance.

TABLE 4
Factor Analysis Results

Questions

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

Factor 4

Factor 5

Trust

Partner Skills

Entrepreneur
Manag. Skills

Entrepreneur Tech.
Skills

Alliance Longevity

Q10 Firm
managerial skills & alliance success

Q11 Partner tech
skills & alliance success

-0.01524

0.0351

0.85195

0.14567

-0.01614

Q12 Partner
managerial skills & alliance success

0.24753

0.60617

0.10837

0.06272

-0.1228

Q13 Access to
partner tech skills & alliance success

-0.13519

0.73183

-0.14726

0.18782

0.08048

Q14 Access to
partner managerial skills & alliance success

0.2862

0.70732

-0.08476

-0.06768

0.07057

Q7 Firm technical
skills & business success

0.05777

0.7959

-0.03286

0.00557

0.12468

Q8 Firm technical
skills & alliance success

0.14104

-0.01201

0.10827

0.86467

-0.16414

Q9 Firm managerial
skills & business success

0.15079

0.1144

0.09013

0.8055

0.20963

Q40 Alliance years

-0.02139

-0.16522

0.8464

0.09278

-0.00701

Q42 Respect for
partner

-0.15693

0.01072

-0.03052

-0.01329

0.90832

Q43 Partner
respect you.

0.34461

0.60723

0.20461

-0.21634

0.09366

Q44 Opportunistic
behavior of partner

0.48637

0.15595

0.54813

-0.15259

0.07797

Q45 Possible
retribution

-0.7929

0.01074

-0.08589

-0.11461

0.1411

Q46 Alliance
forbearance

-0.75943

-0.02886

0.06218

-0.19308

-0.16496

Q47 Entrepreneur
influence

0.49822

0.18798

0.12171

0.14541

0.47619

Q48 Trust your
partner

0.36576

-0.50844

0.048

-0.13445

0.18721

Q49Enter into
another alliance with same partner

0.82172

0.20512

-0.02636

0.16132

-0.14283

0.57946

0.42019

0.09841

-0.28439

-0.19419

Hypothesis 2, predicting that alliance
longevity would be positively associated with alliance success
was not supported in any measure. This came as a surprise
to the authors as it was expected that this hypothesis would be
supported. However, the interviews shed light on this
finding. Early negotiations between large and small firms
might be conducted by people who may not be responsible for the
alliance in later stages. Particularly with respect to the
larger firm who might have different people performing different
functions. The following quotation from one of the
executives interviewed describes this very situation.

People who
make the deals and people who live with the deals arent
always the same people. So if you have
2000 employees, and this is a big part of the problem, the
handful of people that put the deal together often dont
communicate to the people who are actually going to be carrying
the deal forward. People are just sort of thrown into this,
they have never been contacted or approached, and their input
never obtained. They are just handed this thing and that is
a problem.

Hypotheses 3a and 3b, positing that access
to a larger partners resources would be positively
associated with alliance success and the performance of the
entrepreneurial firm, respectively, were both supported.
Hypothesis 3a, when the factor scores were regressed against
measures of alliance success, was significant in two out of three
tests, explaining more than 25% of the observed variance.
Hypothesis 3b, when the factor scores were regressed against
measures of performance, was significant in all tests, explaining
between 20% and 47% of the observed variance in performance.